I'm glad I don't live in NJ

[gbpfan1231]

Edit for accuracy.

I have not read the whole topic yet but I read both of your topics and now you remind me of that Finnegan guy that AJ just biotch slapped. A little punk who rarely adds anything to the conversation but just tries to antagonize and be a little prik. Just my opinion.

[bushwacked]

I have not read the whole topic yet but I read both of your topics and now you remind me of that Finnegan guy that AJ just biotch slapped. A little punk who rarely adds anything to the conversation but just tries to antagonize and be a little prik. Just my opinion.

 

Not everyone is man enough to handle the truth I lay down on the innernets.

Edited November 30, 2010 by bushwacked

[Azazello1313]

bushwacked : Perch

 

=

 

Az : bpwallace

 

wrong, because I actually avoid that twit when I can. bush:perch = fly:dogchit

[bushwacked]

wrong, because I actually avoid that twit when I can. bush:perch = fly:dogchit

 

 

Well, I avoid many of Perch's posts also but seeing we both think Perch's contribution here is generally dogchit, we really aren't disagreeing.

[detlef]

the law itself isn't "evidence", so it doesn't have to be brought up during the evidentiary part of the trial (although the actual evidence as to where he started, where he was going, etc. would have to be established). if anything, the moving exemption thing should have been part of a jury instruction. if the guy had an actual attorney, it's hard to imagine he would have neglected to bring this up at all. I imagine at some point there had to be a ruling from the judge that the exemption didn't apply for whatever reason. if it clearly should have, it seems like a no-brainer appeal. but again, I would presume that he DID violate the letter of the law in some fashion.

Exactly. It is really hard to believe that a bunch of us here in the tailgate understand that, had the jury simply been instructed by the defense about this very specific rule and that his defendant who was following this very specific rule, he would be free to go. But dude just spaced it out until the closing statements. I mean, it's the single most important part of the guy's defense.

 

Rather than believe that, I am more inclined to assume that the guy was doing something more along the lines of what Hugh and Keggerz are implying, that he was running errands or something with a bunch of crap in his car related to the move. Which, it appears, is not legal.

 

As far as big picture stuff is concerned, it certainly doesn't smell like 7 years to me. However, it also doesn't bother me that there are some restrictions on transporting ammunition. Especially ammunition described as rather intense. I don't know enough about guns or ammo to know the degree to which these specific laws are over the top, so I won't comment any further on that.

[SEC=UGA]

Am I the only one that would beat the diaper dirt outta my mom when I got outta prison?

[Furd]

These types of articles usually raise more questions than they answer.

 

The first question that I have is why there wasn't some type of plea bargain?

 

From what I can gather, the guy probably was breaking the law. The "transportation exception" recognizes that you can transport a firearm under certain conditions. They can be a bit technical at times. For instance, in Michigan, a handgun owner that does not possess a CPL may transport the gun from his house to and from a gun range under certain conditions. Let's say that someone is driving home from the range and his wife calls him and asks him to stop at the grocery store for some milk. The moment that guy diverts from his route home and heads to the grocery store, he is violating the law. And when he is heading home from the grocery store, he is still violating the law.

 

One should be able to transport a handgun from one's home to another. Otherwise, you have to mail it or invent some kind of transporter device. It sounds like NJ has such a law. If that guy was driving from one house to another when he got stopped, he got the shaft. But if he was kinda sorta in the process of moving at the time (as it sounds) he's screwed.

 

As far as the trial goes, I am curious as to why defense counsel waited until closing to spring that argument. Its typically not allowed. How can the opposing party introduce evidence to rebut an argument after the proofs are closed? What proofs had been introduced, since a closing must (in theory) be based on the facts introduced at trial? If its your chief defense, why take the chance that you won't be allowed to present it to a jury?

 

There's more to the story methinks.

[Perchoutofwater]

These types of articles usually raise more questions than they answer.

 

The first question that I have is why there wasn't some type of plea bargain?

 

From what I can gather, the guy probably was breaking the law. The "transportation exception" recognizes that you can transport a firearm under certain conditions. They can be a bit technical at times. For instance, in Michigan, a handgun owner that does not possess a CPL may transport the gun from his house to and from a gun range under certain conditions. Let's say that someone is driving home from the range and his wife calls him and asks him to stop at the grocery store for some milk. The moment that guy diverts from his route home and heads to the grocery store, he is violating the law. And when he is heading home from the grocery store, he is still violating the law.

 

One should be able to transport a handgun from one's home to another. Otherwise, you have to mail it or invent some kind of transporter device. It sounds like NJ has such a law. If that guy was driving from one house to another when he got stopped, he got the shaft. But if he was kinda sorta in the process of moving at the time (as it sounds) he's screwed.

 

As far as the trial goes, I am curious as to why defense counsel waited until closing to spring that argument. Its typically not allowed. How can the opposing party introduce evidence to rebut an argument after the proofs are closed? What proofs had been introduced, since a closing must (in theory) be based on the facts introduced at trial? If its your chief defense, why take the chance that you won't be allowed to present it to a jury?

 

There's more to the story methinks.

 

From one of the articles I read, the guy was offered a plea for one year in jail, but turned it down because he did not feel that he had broken the law, and did not want a felony on his record.

[bpwallace49]

Aitken had passed an FBI background check to buy them in Colorado when he lived there, his father said, and had contacted New Jersey State Police and discussed the proper way to transport them.

"He bought them at Bass Pro Shops, for God's sake, not some guy named Tony on the street corner," his father said.

 

New Jersey and Colorado are on opposite ends of the gun-control spectrum. In Colorado, all he needed was the background check to own the guns.

 

In the Garden State, Aitken was required to have a purchaser's permit from New Jersey to own the guns and a carry permit to have them in his car.He also was charged with having "large capacity" magazines and hollow-point bullets, which one state gun-control advocate found troubling.

 

"What little I can glean about the transportation issue leaves me puzzled, but a person with common sense would not be moving illegal products from one place to another by car," said Bryan Miller, executive director of CeaseFire NJ, an organization devoted to reducing gun violence.

 

"If Mr. Aitken did the research he said he did, he would not have hollow-point bullets and large-capacity magazines in the vehicle," Miller said. "They are illegal, period."

 

First the laws seem very very restrictive in the first place, but that is besides the point.

 

Secondly, if he contacted the proper authorities, then why the hell did he have illegal items like the hollow points and large capacity magazines?

 

Third, his lawyer is a moran for not bringing up the statute in trial and admitting the page with the moving exemptions into evidence. (looks like an easy overturn on the handgun issue on appeal, but what about the illegal items he still had?)

 

yes the laws are very restrictive. Yes it bullchit that the judge didnt allow that to be brought up. But he shouldnt have illegal items like the hollow points and large capacity magazines (if they ARE illegal in Jersey). That is on him for breaking the law. he also seems to have had one doozy of a defense attorney that contributed to this debacle.

Edited November 30, 2010 by bpwallace49

[Perchoutofwater]

First the laws seem very very restrictive in the first place, but that is besides the point.

 

Secondly, if he contacted the proper authorities, then why the hell did he have illegal items like the hollow points and large capacity magazines?

 

Third, his lawyer is a moran for not bringing up the statute in trial and admitting the page with the moving exemptions into evidence. (looks like an easy overturn on the handgun issue on appeal, but what about the illegal items he still had?)

 

yes the laws are very restrictive. Yes it bullchit that the judge didnt allow that to be brought up. But he shouldnt have illegal items like the hollow points and large capacity magazines (if they ARE illegal in Jersey). That is on him for breaking the law. he also seems to have had one doozy of a defense attorney that contributed to this debacle.

 

The hollow point claim and large capacity magazine claim are only mentioned in one of the five articles I've read on the case, and it was mentioned by a gun control advocate. The hollow point claim if in fact there were any falls under the same law as transporting the gun based on what I've read, so it's not an issue if the judge allows the jury access to the exemption statute. The high capacity magazine law is for magazines with more than 15 shots, and like I've said, the only source of that is a gun control advocate who got the hollow point thing mixed up, so for all we know it could be an extended clip for a 1911 that holds more than the factory clip, but 15 or fewer shots. I'd like to find out about the clip, as that is the only item where I can see that he possibly broke the law if you take the statements of the witnesses that he was moving stuff from one house to the other.

[bpwallace49]

The hollow point claim and large capacity magazine claim are only mentioned in one of the five articles I've read on the case, and it was mentioned by a gun control advocate. The hollow point claim if in fact there were any falls under the same law as transporting the gun based on what I've read, so it's not an issue if the judge allows the jury access to the exemption statute. The high capacity magazine law is for magazines with more than 15 shots, and like I've said, the only source of that is a gun control advocate who got the hollow point thing mixed up, so for all we know it could be an extended clip for a 1911 that holds more than the factory clip, but 15 or fewer shots. I'd like to find out about the clip, as that is the only item where I can see that he possibly broke the law if you take the statements of the witnesses that he was moving stuff from one house to the other.

 

But would you agree that if he did have an extended magazine, and it was against the law to have/ transport one, that he should be punished?

 

(completely putting aside the fact that New Jersey has restrictive gun laws, ignorance of the law is not an excuse)

[Perchoutofwater]

But would you agree that if he did have an extended magazine, and it was against the law to have/ transport one, that he should be punished?

 

(completely putting aside the fact that New Jersey has restrictive gun laws, ignorance of the law is not an excuse)

 

Absolutely. Though if I ever had to live in a hell hole like NJ, I'd be fighting to change that law, just as I'm talking to my state representative here in Texas to introduce less restrictive gun legislation here. My state representative is proposing two gun laws in the upcoming legislature, one that mirrors Montana's law that any fire arms made wholly in the state and any ammunition made wholly in the state be exempt from federal laws, the other is an open carry law, as Texas is one of 5 states that during the reconstruction era had carpetbaggers come down here an out law open carry.

[Furd]

I pulled this off the NJ website:

N.J.S.A 2C:39-3f(1) limits the possession of hollow nose ammunition. However, there is a general exception that allows for the purchase of this ammunition but restricts the possession of it to specified locations. This exception provides that:

 

(2) Nothing is sub section f (1) shall be construed to prevent a person from keeping such ammunition at his dwelling, premises or other land owned or possessed by him, or from carrying such ammunition from the place of purchase to said dwelling or land . . . [N.J.S.A 26:39-3g (2)].

 

Thus a person may purchase this ammunition and keep it within the confines of his property. Sub section f (1) further exempts from the prohibited possession of hollow nose ammunition "persons engaged in activities pursuant to N.J.S.A 2C:39-6f. . . ."

N.J.S.A 26:39-3f. (1).

 

Activities contained in N.J.S.A 26:39-6f. can be broken down as follows:

 

1.A member of a rifle or pistol club organized under rules of the National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice and which filed its charter with the State Police;

2.A person engaged in hunting or target practice with a firearm legal for hunting in this State;

3.A person going directly to a target range, and;

4.A person going directly to an authorized place for "practice, match, target, trap or skeet shooting exhibitions."

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

It appears that you cannot transport hollow point bullets (however they are defined) between residences.

 

If this is true, why in the hell wouldn't the guy take the deal?

Edited November 30, 2010 by Furd

[Perchoutofwater]

I pulled this off the NJ website:

 

 

It seems to me then you cannot transport hollow point bullets (however they are defined) bewteen residences.

 

If this is true, why in the hell wouldn't the guy take the deal?

 

If you can take it from the place of purchase to your residence, it would stand to reason that you could take it from one residence to another if you are moving, would it not? What are you supposed to do, leave the ammunition for the future owner of your home?

[Hugh 0ne]

Though if I ever had to live in a hell hole like NJ

 

How many times have you been to New Jersey?

[Perchoutofwater]

How many times have you been to New Jersey?

 

Once and it was more than enough. Don't feel bad, I think NY is a bigger hell hole. I'm not a big fan of large metropolitan areas. I like to be able to take a piss of the back porch without having charges filed against me, carry my gun pretty much wherever I damned well please (with the exception of schools ), and have the state stay out of my hair unless I'm actively doing something against another.

[Furd]

If you can take it from the place of purchase to your residence, it would stand to reason that you could take it from one residence to another if you are moving, would it not?

 

I'm guessing that you haven't read many laws.

 

Otherwise, you wouldn't have mentioned "reason."

[Perchoutofwater]

I'm guessing that you haven't read many laws.

 

Otherwise, you wouldn't have mentioned "reason."

 

f'n lawyers

[Furd]

f'n lawyers

 

 

The people that write laws aren't lawyers. They are people with law degrees.

 

A hugh difference.

[SheikYerbuti]

Once and it was more than enough. Don't feel bad, I think NY is a bigger hell hole. I'm not a big fan of large metropolitan areas. I like to be able to take a piss of the back porch without having charges filed against me, carry my gun pretty much wherever I damned well please (with the exception of schools ), and have the state stay out of my hair unless I'm actively doing something against another.

 

Public urination over the cultural and intellectual center of the planet. No wonder Palin is going to be the next president.

[Perchoutofwater]

Public urination over the cultural and intellectual center of the planet. No wonder Palin is going to be the next president.

 

I sincerely hope you are wrong about Palin.

[bpwallace49]

Absolutely. Though if I ever had to live in a hell hole like NJ, I'd be fighting to change that law, just as I'm talking to my state representative here in Texas to introduce less restrictive gun legislation here. My state representative is proposing two gun laws in the upcoming legislature, one that mirrors Montana's law that any fire arms made wholly in the state and any ammunition made wholly in the state be exempt from federal laws, the other is an open carry law, as Texas is one of 5 states that during the reconstruction era had carpetbaggers come down here an out law open carry.

 

Hence why he had a terrible defense attorney and should be overturned on appeal. If all this is provable that he was moving at the time of arrest and that he had all proper documenattion after he previously called the state troopers to ask about the law, then Fozzie Bear from the muppets could have gotten the case dismissed. If he did in some way break the byzantine laws that Jersey has regarding firearms, then I have little sympathy.

 

If your only point was to rail about how unjust gun laws are and use this case as a soapbox to stand on, then by all means . . . . rail away.

[Dr. Sacrebleu]

The hollow point claim and large capacity magazine claim are only mentioned in one of the five articles I've read on the case, and it was mentioned by a gun control advocate. The hollow point claim if in fact there were any falls under the same law as transporting the gun based on what I've read, so it's not an issue if the judge allows the jury access to the exemption statute. The high capacity magazine law is for magazines with more than 15 shots, and like I've said, the only source of that is a gun control advocate who got the hollow point thing mixed up, so for all we know it could be an extended clip for a 1911 that holds more than the factory clip, but 15 or fewer shots. I'd like to find out about the clip, as that is the only item where I can see that he possibly broke the law if you take the statements of the witnesses that he was moving stuff from one house to the other.

 

 

Gut feeling is that the guy definitely had a bad lawyer, may have gotten a bad judge (but he may also have been handcuffed by following procedure), and definitely got caught up in a law that was intended to go after other types of criminials.

It is hard to make any claim whatsoever with any certainty regarding the story, because we seem to be missing a lot of facts.

If the facts are indeed aligned w aitken's website claims he should be a shoe in on appeal.

My guess is that the facts are not quite as cut and dry.

 

Although Perch is trying to make the case as rationally as he can, I do like his sourcing to the freeaitken website as just another objective view of the story while dismissing the claims of the anti-gun advocate as biased

 

On the one hand I do hope the guy gets out soon for what seems like a big mistake, but just a mistake.

On the other hand, I am a nanny state beleiver, and I really don't like the idea of people going around w guns who are so distraught that their parent feels the need to call 911. As a man who likes a bit of wagering, I would lay down 10 to 1 odds that that guy is more likely to go on a killing rampage of his ex-wife than stop a crime in progress....

[Azazello1313]

But would you agree that if he did have an extended magazine, and it was against the law to have/ transport one, that he should be punished?

 

I'm gonna go ahead and say no, absolutely not. I do not want every minute violation of any statute to be prosecuted to the fullest extent. I don't want someone who forgets to sign their tax return put in jail. I do want someone who intentionally cheats on their taxes to be put in jail. I do want someone with a known criminal history and criminal associations who gets stopped with guns and hollow point ammo in his car to have the screws put to him. this is why we give prosecutors and judges so much discretion as far as what they charge and how they sentence. it is their RESPONSIBILITY to use common sense in trying to prevent what the law actually tries to prevent, rather than seeking out any and every technical violation and hammering it as hard as they can.

 

this guy has no record, and was in the middle of moving. he had stuff that he's allowed to have in his home, but not in his car. if you want to slap him with a couple hundred dollar fine or something, I am on board with that. to put him in jail, for a year or seven, is a preposterous travesty IMO.

[keggerz]

How many times have you been to New Jersey?

not sh1t because all of NJ is a cesspool and all of texas is a bed of yellow roses...i just love it when people spout off about things that they know nothing of. But hey, rail away on a state that you have been to once